Oligarchic Models in the Romanian
Media Market
Summary
1. from anonymous 'Cypriots' to 'famous' oligarchs
2. how to investigate media ownership
3. legislation and monitoring activities to improve the
transparency and prevent the concentration
2008: The Main TV Channels
Audience share (%)
CME (Bermuda)
26
 TVR (PSB) 22
Antena (previously
Cyprus-based
owner –
Voiculescu's
family) 15.1
 Pro Sieben 4.7
 Blue Link
Comunicazione
(Cyprus) – Sorin
Ovidiu Vantu 3.7

CME
TVR (1&2)
Antena
(Voiculescu
family)
Pro Sieben
Sorin O
Vantu
Others
Source: TNS-AGB, apud NMP, EUMAP 2008
2008: The Main TV Channels
Advertising share (%)




CME
(Bermuda)
33.8
TVR 12.9
Antena 1
(previously
Cyprus-based
owner) 11.0
Realitatea TV
(Cyprus) 7.0
CME
TVR1
Antena 1
Realitatea TV
National TV
Others
Source: TNS-AGB, apud NMP, EUMAP 2008
2011
Broadcasting: Almost similar like during the past
years. Highly concentrated:
2 foreign groups
2 local oligarchs
The state-owned TV has decreased in audience.
Two foreign groups CME, ProSieben1; two oligarchs
Voiculescu and Vantu.
Politician Dan Voiculescu
Sorin Ovidiu Vantu – prosecuted for allegedly illegal
activities
OK, Cyprus and Bermuda Island.
The question is: Why?
What is the main reason for choosing tax-heaven?
Possible reasons:
1. to decrease taxes: (supposedly) legal.
(i.e. CME / Mediafax news agency)
2. to hide ownership and the money traces – suspect
(Realitatea Media – Bluelink - Cyprus/ under investigation)
3. to 'wash' money and/ other illegal activities – illegal
after a final decision of a court.
Current regulations – audiovisual Law 504/2004
Ownership Data – published on the CNA's website
Art 43 (5) 10% of the
share capital or of the
voting rights of a
company holding must notify the Council
(6) Shares shall be only
nominal.
(7) The use in whatever
way of another
person’s name by a
company is forbidden.
www.cna.ro.
Ownership data – available
and regularly updated.
Evolution in Romania: From Cyprus anonymity
to 'transparent' oligarchy
2000 - 2004
Cyprus-bases
companies,
New Jersey,
Bermuda,
Virgin Island,
Switherland etc
Currently: the
Broadcasting
Regulator obliges
Pressure
the players to
from civil society disclose ownership –
physical person
Print media: from Media Investors 2010:
to 92.5%
NonMedia
'Famous' Oligarchs
Ownership
2006: 72.3%
Non- Media
Ownerships
in the media
Business
Media
ownership
Media ownership
in the media business
(% of the circulation
market share)
2006:
27.7%
Non-media
.
ownership
..
2010:7.5%
Media Ownership
The specifics of the Eastern European market:
unfair competition; artificial increase in audience
Average circulation per issue increased in Romania 2009 towards 2008. (WAN in
Stetka, Vaclav, MDCEE, lecture RISF, 23.02.2011)
Potential explanation: artificial increase by Patriciu's media group apparently on
illogical economic reason. The leading media investor in print media (who made
money from the petroleum industry) lost about 40 million euro/year in 2010 and he
keeps investing in the media business. The question is: why?
Indirectly, profit in other
Business (evidences
required! Not obvious)
Non-media ownership
Influence
If not for other
commercial interests,
then Why?
Who owns the media – way to look
into it
How to investigate on
media ownership:
Look into the trade registry
data (the registry of
companies)
Foreign-ownership: look into
the registry in their country
Go on the field: Contact local
media to learn more – is
there just a 'postal box'?
Or does that company has
an office abroad,
employees etc
Where the money are coming from?
Lack of legislation on transparency of financing
Transparency of financing sources
Art 30 (5) Constitution of Romania
(5) The law may impose upon the mass media the obligation
to make public their financing source.
Never put into specific legislation.
Preventing media concentration
A. Quantitatively: audience share + revenues share
Romanian Law: rudimentary - only audience share
The main limitation: 30% of the audience market share
B. Qualitatively: horizontal, vertical, cross-ownership
Romanian Law: rudimentary – horizontal, vertical
Absent – cross-ownership
Art. 44 Audiovisual Law 504/2002 (as updated)
(1) With a view to protecting pluralism and cultural diversity,
ownership concentration - limited to dimensions
ensuring economic efficiency, but not generating
dominant positions in forming of public opinion.
Official Gazette of Romania, PART I, November 19th, 2009
Mixture of interests behind media models –
interesting case studies:
Lately, evidences about media owners' interference not only in the
media business, but also in the 'triangulated' relation media-powerbusiness have become common (e.g. transcripts in Sorin Ovidiu
Vintu's case, showing he was discussing about portfolios in the next
government (Gandul, 18.10.2010, available online, in Romanian language).
Case studies revealing what kind of 'other interests' are behind a
media business have also occurred: The prosecutors and the judges
fear of me, and if rumors that I do not own Realitatea TV anymore
come out, they would judge me as if I was an ordinary burglar. (Sorin
Ovidiu Vintu, media owner, in a phone talk with Cozmin Gusa, transcripts in Gandul, cit).
Content Monitoring studies showing high discrepancies between
different media coverage. (e.g. Udovičić, Radenko, ed. (2007),
Indicator of public interest: TV prime time domestic news monitoring and analysis of TV news.
Conclusions
Ownership
although more transparent than in the past, the ownership analysis
reveals:
significant structural changes - the dominance of non-media
ownership in the print media business
dominance of structural oligarchic models
dominance of the influence-driven pattern
Concentration of influence-driven media businesses
Financing resources
Obscure resources – little information about money. No legislation
to ensure the transparency.